Today's PRC Pt I: Michael Jordan Takes On "Qiaodan"

."The image of China as the Wild, Wild East of intellectual property protection is, in many instances, well-deserved. After all, if you allow copying entire Apple Stores or Land Rover automobiles, then IP protection is probably not one of your priorities. But, that may become a thing of the past as the American basketball legend Michael Jordan has reached China's Supreme People's Court in a case against PRC-based "Qiaodan." Despite the knock-off being around since, oh, 1984, let's just say that it took this long to get around to meaningful legal action:

In the appeal hearing that started on Tuesday, Jordan’s lawyers argued
that Qiaodan Sports Co. Ltd., a family-owned business with about 6,000
shops selling shoes and sportswear throughout China, has damaged the
basketball star’s legal rights to his name, asking that the company’s
trademark registrations be revoked. Qiaodan, pronounced "Chee-ow dahn",
is a Mandarin transliteration of Jordan that was registered by the
Chinese company more than a decade ago. Jordan first sued the company in
2012 and lower courts have ruled on behalf of the Chinese company.

It appears a flagrant violation, yet the wheels of Chinese justice take a while to turn:

Qiaodan, one of the country’s top sports apparel makers founded in
1984, legally registered the Pinyin "Qiaodan" and Chinese characters of
the name. Jordan’s lawyers say the company uses his basketball jersey
number "23" to sell products, as well as created a similar basketball
replica of Jordan’s iconic "Jumpman" logo that Nike Inc. uses for its
Air Jordan brand. Jordan’s team argues that under China’s law, the
company’s trademarks have damaged his legal rights and is asking the
court to invalidate more than 60 trademarks used by the company.

"Qiaodan
is a name that is well known to every household in China and refers to
Michael Jordan," Qi Fang, a lawyer with Fangda Partners representing
Jordan, told the court on Tuesday. Lawyers for the Chinese company
succeeded last July in arguing that Jordan is a very common English
last name. Jordan’s lawyers appealed that case and the decision by the
Supreme People’s Court will be final.

With China aiming to become a consumer-driven market, the outcome of this trial matters insofar as it will send a signal to other foreign brands whether their IP will be protected better:

The case illustrates the challenges of Chinese intellectual property
law for some foreign companies in the world’s fastest-growing consumer
market. The case could set an important legal precedent for trademark
rights in China, and some legal scholars say the case offers the
nation’s Supreme People’s Court an opportunity to present a positive
image of the Chinese legal system.

"It’s
an extremely influential case, and the final verdict from China’s top
court would play a leading role in future similar cases," said Li Shunde,
a Chinese Academy of Social Sciences research specialist in
intellectual-property law. "China has been consolidating IP over the
past years and apparently the authorities want to use this case to show
that the country takes the IP issues very seriously and is devoting
resources to protect the rights of foreign businesses."